Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T21:17:54.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Selecting biodiversity indicators to set conservation targets: species, structures, or processes?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Sven G. Nilsson
Edited by
Marc-André Villard  and
Bengt Gunnar Jonsson
Sven G. Nilsson
Affiliation:
University of Lund, Sweden
Marc-André Villard
Affiliation:
Université de Moncton, Canada
Bengt Gunnar Jonsson
Affiliation:
Mid-Sweden University, Sweden
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

An important goal in sustainable forestry is to maintain biodiversity, i.e. to use the forest but still maintain all the indigenous species and their genetic variation. To do this, it is essential to maintain important structures and processes on which numerous species are dependent. However, how do we know that biodiversity is maintained in managed forest landscapes? How much of the important structures, e.g. large living and dead trees that dominate in old-growth forests (Nilsson et al. 2002), is needed? How often and at what intensity should processes such as ecological disturbances by water, wind, fire, large herbivores, insect outbreaks, etc. be allowed/initiated? Obviously, owing to limited knowledge and human resources, it is presently impossible to count all species in a forest, a task that has yet to be achieved in any forest in the world. Large old-growth forests harbor exceedingly rich faunas and floras (Bobiec et al. 2005) and numerous species depend on dead wood (Elton 1966; Siitonen 2001). We also have to set some targets for important structures and/or use biodiversity indicators, which can tell us that biodiversity is preserved in managed forest landscapes. There have been several major approaches to this difficult problem of setting conservation targets for the maintenance of biodiversity.

  1. Strict protection strategy to protect remaining natural forest: set aside 5, 10, 20, or 50% of the forest land for conservation and allocate the rest to management. Carry out management of protected areas, sometimes through the removal of introduced species and/or restoration of managed forests to a more natural state.

  2. […]

Type
Chapter
Information
Setting Conservation Targets for Managed Forest Landscapes , pp. 79 - 108
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahlén, I. and Nilsson, S. G.. 1982. Species richness and area requirements of forest bird species on islands with natural forests in Lake Mälaren and Hjälmaren. Vår Fågelvärld 41:161–84.Google Scholar
Angelstam, P. 2004. Habitat threshold and effects of forest landscape change on the distribution and abundance of black grouse and capercaillie. Ecological Bulletins 51:173–87.Google Scholar
Angelstam, P.et al. 2004. Habitat modelling as a tool for landscape-scale conservation – a review of parameters for focal forest birds. Ecological Bulletins 51:427–53.Google Scholar
,Anonymous. 1980. World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN-UNEP-WWF.Google Scholar
,Anonymous. 1991. Proposition 1990/91:90. En God Livsmiljö. Stockholm: Swedish Parliament.Google Scholar
,Anonymous. 2000. Svensk FSC-Standard för Certifiering av Skogsbruk. Uppsala, Sweden: Svenska FSC-rådet.Google Scholar
Antonsson, K., Hedin, J., Jansson, N., Nilsson, S. G. and Ranius, T.. 2003. Läderbaggens (Osmoderma eremita) förekomst i Sverige. Entomologisk Tidskrift 124:225–40.Google Scholar
Bader, P., Jansson, S. and Jonsson, B. G.. 1995. Wood-inhabiting fungi and substratum decline in selectively logged boreal spruce forests. Biological Conservation 72:355–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balmford, A. 1996. Extinction filters and current resilience: the significance of past selection pressures for conservation biology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11:193–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, J. K. and Whitham, T. G.. 2006. Interactions between cottonwood and beavers positively affect sawfly abundance. Ecological Entomology 31:294–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnosky, A.et al. 2004. Assessing the causes of late Pleistocene extinctions on the continents. Science 306:70–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bengtsson, J., Nilsson, S. G., Franc, A. and Menozzi, P.. 2000. Biodiversity, disturbances, ecosystem function and management of European forests. Forest Ecology and Management 132:39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Å., Gärdenfors, U., Hallingbäck, T. and Norén, M.. 2002. Habitat preferences of red-listed fungi and bryophytes in woodland key habitats in southern Sweden – analyses of data from a national survey. Biodiversity and Conservation 11:1479–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berglund, H. and Jonsson, B. G.. 2005. Verifying an extinction debt among lichens and fungi in northern Swedish boreal forests. Conservation Biology 19:338–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, K.-O. 1999. Habitat utilization by Lopinga achine (Nymphalidae: Satyrinae) larvae and ovipositing females: implication for conservation. Biological Conservation 88:69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobiec, A. (ed.), Gutowski, J. M., Zub, K., Pawlaczyk, P. and William, F. L.. 2005. The afterlife of a tree. WWF-Poland, The World Wide Fund for Nature.
Bouget, C. 2005. Short-term effect of windstorm disturbance on saproxylic beetles in broadleaved temperate forests: Part I: Do environmental changes induce a gap effect?Forest Ecology and Management 216:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouget, C. and Duelli, P.. 2004. The effects of windthrow on forest insect communities: a literature review. Biological Conservation 118:281–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brazaitis, G. and Angelstam, P.. 2004. Influence of edges between old deciduous forest and clearcuts on the abundance of passerine hole-nesting birds in Lithuania. Ecological Bulletins 51:209–17.Google Scholar
Brunet, J. 1993. Environmental and historical factors limiting the distribution of rare forest grasses in south Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 61:263–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunet, J. and Oheimb, G.. 1998. Migration of vascular plants to secondary woodlands in southern Sweden. Journal of Ecology 86:429–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bütler, R., Angelstam, P., Ekelund, P. and Schlaepfer, R.. 2004. Dead wood threshold values for the three-toed woodpecker presence in boreal and sub-Alpine forest. Biological Conservation 119:305–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabeza, M. and Moilanen, A.. 2003. Site-selection algorithms and habitat loss. Conservation Biology 17:1402–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carignan, V. and Villard, M.-A.. 2002. Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity: a review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 78:45–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobson, A.et al. 2006. Habitat loss, trophic collapse, and the decline of ecosystem services. Ecology 87:1915–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dzwonko, Z. and Loster, S.. 1989. Distribution of vascular plant species in small woodlands on the western Carpathian foothills. Oikos 56:77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzwonko, Z. and Loster, S.. 1992. Species richness and seed dispersal to secondary woods in southern Poland. Journal of Biogeography 19:195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edman, M., Kruys, N. and Jonsson, B. G.. 2004. Local dispersal sources strongly affect colonization patterns of wood-decaying fungi on spruce logs. Ecological Applications 14:893–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehnström, B. and Axelsson, R.. 2002. Insektsgnag i Bark och Ved. Uppsala, Sweden: ArtDatabanken.Google Scholar
Eliasson, P. and Nilsson, S. G.. 1999. [The Swedish oak during the 16th and 17th centuries – quantities, qualities and biodiversity.]Bebyggelsehistorisk Tidskrift 37:33–64.Google Scholar
Eliasson, P. and Nilsson, S. G.. 2002. ‘You Should Hate Young Oaks and Young Noblemen’: the environmental history of oaks in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Sweden. Environmental History 7:657–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elton, C. S. 1966. The Pattern of Animal Communities. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Emborg, J., Christensen, M. and Heilmann-Clausen, J.. 2000. The structural dynamics of Suserup Skov, a near-natural temperate deciduous forest in Denmark. Forest Ecology and Management 126:173–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, P. 2002. [Methods to monitor woodliving insects.] Upplandsstiftelsen och Naturvårdsverket. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverkets Förlag.
Esséen, P.-A. 2006. Edge influence on the old-growth forest indicator lichen Alectoria sarmentosa in natural ecotones. Journal of Vegetation Science 17:185–94.Google Scholar
Esseén, P.-A., Ehnström, B., Ericson, L. and Sjöberg, K.. 1997. Boreal forests. Ecological Bulletins 46:16–47.Google Scholar
Falinski, J. B. 1986. Vegetation dynamics in temperate lowland primeval forest. Ecological studies in Bialowieza forest. Geobotany 8:1–537.Google Scholar
Franc, N., Götmark, F., Økland, B., Norden, B. and Paltto, H.. 2007. Factors and scales potentially important for saproxylic beetles in temperate mixed oak forest. Biological Conservation 135:86–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freese, A., Benes, J., Bolz, R.et al. 2006. Habitat use of the endangered butterfly Euphydryas maturna and forestry in Central Europe. Animal Conservation 9:388–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, U. (ed.) 2000. Rödlistade arter i Sverige 2000 – The 2000 Red List of Swedish Species. Uppsala, Sweden: ArtDatabanken, SLU.
Gjerde, I., Sætersdal, M. and Blom, H. H.. 2007. Complementary Hotspot Inventory – a method for identification of important areas for biodiversity at the forest stand level. Biological Conservation 137:549–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granström, A. 1993. Spatial and temporal variation in lightning ignitions in Sweden. Journal of Vegetation Science 4:737–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granström, A. 2001. Fire management for biodiversity in the European boreal forest. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research Suppl. 3:62–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grove, A. S. 2002. Saproxylic insect ecology and the sustainable management of forest. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gu, W. D., Heikkilä, R. and Hanski, I.. 2002. Estimating the consequences of habitat fragmentation on extinction risk in dynamic landscapes. Landscape Ecology 17:699–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannah, L., Carr, J. L. and Lankerani, A.. 1995. Human disturbance and natural habitat: a biome level analysis of a global data set. Biodiversity and Conservation 4:128–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanski, I. 2000. Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. Annales Zoologici Fennici 37:271–80.Google Scholar
Harding, P. T. and Rose, F.. 1986. Pasture-woodlands in Lowland Britain. A Review of their Importance for Wildlife Conservation. Huntingdon, UK: Institute of Terrestrial Ecology.Google Scholar
Hazell, P. and Gustafsson, L.. 1999. Retention of trees at final harvest – evaluation of a conservation technique using epiphytic bryophyte and lichen transplants. Biological Conservation 90:133–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedenås, H. and Ericson, L.. 2000. Epiphytic macrolichens as conservation indicators: successional sequence in Populus tremula stands. Biological Conservation 93:43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedin, J. 2003. Metapopulation ecology of Osmoderna eremita – dispersal, habitat quality and habitat history. Ph.D thesis, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Hedin, J., Ranius, T., Nilsson, S. G. and Smith, H. G.. 2008. Restricted dispersal in a flying beetle assessed by telemetry. Biodiversity and Conservation17:675–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermy, M. 1994. Effects of former land use on plant species diversity and pattern in European deciduous woodlands. Pp. 123–43 in Boyle, T. J. B. and Boyle, C. E. B. (eds.) Biodiversity, Temperate Ecosystems, and Global Change. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermy, M. and Stieperaere, H.. 1981. An indirect gradient analysis of the ecological relationships between ancient and recent riverine wood-lands to the south of Bruges. Vegetatio 44:46–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, J. D., Fahrig, L. and Cappucino, N.. 2005. Fecundity determines the extinction threshold in a Canadian assemblage of longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Journal of Insect Conservation 9:109–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honnay, O., Jacquemyn, H., Bossuyt, B. and Hermy, M.. 2005. Forest fragmentation effects on patch occupancy and population viability of herbaceous plant species. New Phytologist 166:723–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, M. L. (ed.) 1999. Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Hylander, K., Jonsson, B.-G. and Nilsson, C.. 2002. Evaluating buffer strips along boreal streams using bryophytes as indicators. Ecological Applications 12:797–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyvärinen, E., Kouki, J., Martikainen, P. and Lappalainen, H.. 2005. Short-term effects of controlled burning and green-tree retention on beetle (Coleoptera) assemblages in managed boreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management 212:315–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnsson, K., Nilsson, S. G. and Tjernberg, M.. 1993. Characteristics and utilization of old black woodpecker holes by hole-nesting species. Ibis 135:410–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonsson, B. G. and Kruys, N. (eds.) 2001. Ecology of woody debris in boreal forests. Ecological Bulletins 49.
Jonsell, M., Weslien, J. and Ehnström, B.. 1998. Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodiversity and Conservation 7:749–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junninen, K., Similä, M., Kouki, J. and Kotiranta, H.. 2006. Assemblages of wood-inhabiting fungi along the gradients of succession and naturalness in boreal pine-dominated forests in Fennoscandia. Ecography 29:75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juutinen, A., Mönkkönen, M. and Sippola, A.-L.. 2006. Cost-efficiency of decaying wood as a surrogate for overall species richness in boreal forests. Conservation Biology 20:84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jüriado, I., Suija, A. and Liira, J.. 2006. Biogeographical determinants of lichen species diversity on islets in the West-Estonian Archipelago. Journal of Vegetation Science 17:125–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, K. J. and Drake, C. M.. 1993. Dead Wood Matters: The Ecology and Conservation of SaproxylicInvertebrates in Britain. Proceedings of a British Ecological Society Meeting, Dunham Massey Park, 24 April 1992. Peterborough: English Nature.Google Scholar
Lambeck, R. J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11:849–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindbladh, M., Niklasson, M. and Nilsson, S. G.. 2003. Long-time record of fire and open canopy in a high biodiversity forest in southeast Sweden. Biological Conservation 114:231–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenmayer, D. B., Margules, C. R. and Botkin, D. B.. 2000. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conservation Biology 14:941–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löbel, S., Snäll, T. and Rydin, H.. 2006. Metapopulation processes in epiphytes inferred from patterns of regional distribution and local abundance in fragmented forest landscapes. Journal of Ecology 94:856–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martikainen, P., Kaila, L. and Haila, Y.. 1998. Threatened beetles in White-backed Woodpecker habitats. Conservation Biology 12:293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martikainen, P., Siitonen, J., Kaila, L., Punttila, P. and Rauh, J.. 2000. Species richness of Coleoptera in mature managed and old growth boreal forests in southern Finland. Biological Conservation 94:199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, O. 1989. Click beetles (Coleoptera, Elateridae) from old deciduous forest in Denmark. Entomologiske Meddelelser 57:1–107. (In Danish with English summary.)Google Scholar
Matthysen, E. 1999. Nuthatches (Sitta europea: Aves) in forest fragments: Demography of a patchy population. Oecologia 119:501–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moilanen, A. and Winthle, B. A.. 2006. Uncertainty analysis favours selection of spatially aggregated reserve networks. Biological Conservation 129:427–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naiman, R. J., Johnston, C. A. and Kelly, J. C.. 1988. Alteration of North-American streams by beaver. BioScience 38:753–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niklasson, M. 2003. En undersökning av trädåldrar i halländska skogsreservat. Report 2002:28. Halmstad, Sweden: County Administration of Halland.
Niklasson, M. and Drakenberg, B.. 2001. A 600-year tree-ring fire history from Norra Kvills National Park, southern Sweden: implications for conservation strategies in the hemiboreal zone. Biological Conservation 101:63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niklasson, M. and Granström, A.. 2000. Numbers and size of fires: long term trends in a Swedish boreal landscape. Ecology 81:1484–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niklasson, M. and Nilsson, S. G.. 2005. Skogsdynamik och arters Bevarande – Bevarandebiologi, Skogshistoria, Skogsekologi och deras Tillämpning i Sydsveriges Landskap. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Nilsson, S. G. 1979. Density and species richness of some forest bird communities in South Sweden. Oikos 33:392–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, S. G. 1986. Are bird communities in small biotope patches random samples from communities in large patches?Biological Conservation 38:179–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, S. G. 1997. Forests in the temperate-boreal transition: natural and man-made features. Ecological Bulletins 46:61–71.Google Scholar
Nilsson, S. G. 2001. The most valuable areas for preservation of biodiversity in southern Sweden – woodliving beetles as guides to hot-spots. Fauna och Flora 96:59–70. (In Swedish with English summary.)Google Scholar
Nilsson, S. G., Arup, U., Baranowski, R. and Ekman, S.. 1994. Tree-dependent lichens and beetles in old-fashioned agricultural landscapes. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift 85:1–12. (In Swedish with English summary.)Google Scholar
Nilsson, S. G. and Baranowski, R.. 1994. Indicators of megatree continuity – Swedish distribution of click beetles (Coleoptera: Elateridae) dependent on hollow trees. Entomologisk Tidskrift 115:81–97. (In Swedish with English summary.)Google Scholar
Nilsson, S. G. and Baranowski, R.. 1996. Changes in the Swedish distribution of click beetles (Elateridae) occurring in the boreal forest. Entomologisk Tidskrift 117:87–101. (In Swedish with English summary.)Google Scholar
Nilsson, S. G. and Baranowski, R.. 1997a. Changes in the distribution of southern click beetles dependent on dead trees (Coleoptera: Elateridae and Lissomidae) in Sweden. Entomologisk Tidskrift 118:73–98. (In Swedish with English summary.)Google Scholar
Nilsson, S. G. and Baranowski, R.. 1997b. Habitat predictability and the occurrence of beetles in old growth beech forests. Ecography 20:491–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, S. G., Baranowski, R., Ehnström, B.et al. 2000. Ceruchus chrysomelinus (Coleoptera, Lucanidae), a disappearing virgin forest relict species?Entomologisk Tidskrift 121:137–46. (In Swedish with English summary.)Google Scholar
Nilsson, S. G. and Ericson, L.. 1997. Conservation of plant and animal populations in theory and practice. Ecological Bulletins 46:87–101.Google Scholar
Nilsson, S. G., Olsson, O., Svensson, S. and Wiktander, U.. 1992. Population trends and fluctuations in Swedish woodpeckers. Ornis Svecica 2:13–21.Google Scholar
Nilsson, S. G., Arup, U., Baranowski, R. and Ekman, S.. 1995. Lichens and beetles as indicators in conservation forests. Conservation Biology 9:1208–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, S. G., Hedin, J. and Niklasson, M.. 2001. Biodiversity and its assessment in boreal and nemoral forests. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 16, Suppl. 3:10–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, S. G., Niklasson, M., Hedin, J.et al. 2002. Densities of large living and dead trees in old-growth temperate and boreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management 161:189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, S. G., Niklasson, M., Hedin, J., Eliasson, P. and Ljungberg, H.. 2005. Biodiversity and sustainable forestry in changing landscapes – principles and southern Sweden as an example. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 21:12–42.Google Scholar
Nitare, J. (ed.) 2000. Signalarter – Indikatorer på Skyddsvärd Skog. Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen Förlag.
Nordén, B. and Appelqvist, T.. 2001. Conceptual problems of ecological continuity and its bioindicators. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:779–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noss, R. F. 1999. Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework and indicators. Forest Ecology and Management xs115:135–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öckinger, E., Niklasson, M. and Nilsson, S. G.. 2005. Is local distribution of the epiphytic lichen Lobaria pulmonaria limited by dispersal capacity or habitat quality? Biodiversity and Conservation 14:759–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Økland, B. 1996. Unlogged forest: important sites for preservating the diversity of mycetophilids (Diptera: Sciaroidea). Biological Conservation 76:297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, O., Wiktander, U., Malmqvist, A. and Nilsson, S. G.. 2001. Variability of patch type preferences in relation to resource availability and breeding success in a bird. Oecologia 127:435–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ovaskainen, O. 2002. Long-term persistence of species and the SLOSS problem. Journal of Theoretical Biology 218:419–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pakkala, T., Pellikka, J. and Linden, H.. 2003. Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus – a good candidate for an umbrella species in taiga forests. Wildlife Biology 9:309–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paltto, H., Nordén, B., Götmark, F. and Franc, N.. 2006. At which spatial and temporal scales does landscape context affect local density of Red Data Book and Indicator species?Biological Conservation 133:442–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, D. L. 1994. Selecting indicator taxa for the quantitative assessment of biodiversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 345:75–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pendergast, J. R. and Eversham, B. C.. 1997. Species richness covariance in higher taxa: empirical tests of the biodiversity indicator concept. Ecography 20:210–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penttilä, R., Siitonen, J. and Kuusinen, M.. 2004. Polypore diversity in managed and old-growth boreal Picea abies forests in southern Finland. Biological Conservation 117:271–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penttilä, R., Lindgren, M., Miettinen, O., Rita, H. and Hanski, I.. 2006. Consequences of forest fragmentation for polyporous fungi at two spatial scales. Oikos 114:225–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlin, J. 1988. A Forest Journey. The Role of Wood in the Development of Civilization. London: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
Peterken, G. F. and Game, M.. 1984. Historical factors affecting the number and distribution of vascular plant species in the woodlands of central Lincolnshire, England. Journal of Ecology 72:155–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettersson, B. 1985. Extinction of an isolated population of the middle spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos medius (L.) in Sweden and its relation to general theories on extinction. Biological Conservation 32:335–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontailler, J.-Y., Faille, A. and Lemée, G.. 1997. Storms drive successional dynamics in natural forests: a case study in Fontainebleau forest (France). Forest Ecology and Management 98:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pykälä, J. 2004. Effects of new forestry practices on rare epiphytic macrolichens. Conservation Biology 18:831–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackham, O. 1980. Ancient Woodland. Norwich: Fletcher and Son.Google Scholar
Ranius, T. 2000. Minimum viable metapopulation size of a beetle, Osmoderma eremita, living in tree hollows. Animal Conservation 3:37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranius, T. 2002a. Osmoderma eremita as an indicator of species richness of beetles in tree hollows. Biodiversity and Conservation 11:931–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranius, T. 2002b. Influence of stand size and quality of tree hollows on saproxylic beetles in Sweden. Biological Conservation 103:85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranius, T. and Hedin, J.. 2001. The dispersal rate of a beetle, Osmoderma eremita, living in tree hollows. Oecologia 126:363–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ranius, T., Aguado, L. O., Antonsson, K.et al. 2005. Osmoderma eremita (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Cetoniinae) in Europe. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 28:1–44.Google Scholar
Roberge, J.-M. and Angelstam, P. 2006. Indicator species among resident forest birds – a cross-regional evaluation in northern Europe. Biological Conservation 130:134–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, F. 1976. Lichenological indicators of age and environmental continuity in woodlands. Pp. 279–307 in Brown, D. H., Hawksworth, D. L. and Bailey, R. H. (eds.) Lichenology. Progress and Problems. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosell, F., Bozér, O., Collen, P. and Parker, H.. 2005. Ecological impact of beavers Castor fiber and Castor canadensis and their ability to modify ecosystems. Mammal Review 35:248–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouvinen, S. and Kuuvulainen, T.. 2005. Tree diameter distributions in natural and managed old Pinus sylvestris-dominated forests. Forest Ecology and Management 208:45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rundlöf, U. and Nilsson, S. G.. 1995. Fem Ess Metoden. Spåra skyddsvärd skog i södra Sverige. Stockholm: Naturskyddsföreningen.Google Scholar
Schiegg, K. 2000. Effects of dead wood volume and connectivity on saproxylic insect species diversity. Ecoscience 7:290–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siitonen, J. 2001. Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecological Bulletins 49:11–41.Google Scholar
Siitonen, J. and Saaristo, L.. 2000. Habitat requirements and conservation of Pytho kolwensis, a beetle species of old-growth boreal forest. Biological Conservation 94:211–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siitonen, J., Penttilä, R. and Kotiranta, H. 2001. Coarse woody debris, polyporous fungi and saproxylic insects in an old-growth spruce forest in Vodlozero National Park, Russian Karelia. Ecological Bulletins 49:231–42.Google Scholar
Siitonen, P., Lehtinen, A. and Siitonen, M.. 2005. Effects of forest edges on the distribution, abundance, and regional persistence of wood-rotting fungi. Conservation Biology 19:205–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Similä, M., Kouki, J., Martikainen, P. and Uotila, A.. 2002. Conservation of beetles in boreal pine forests: the effects of forestage and naturalness on species assemblages. Biological Conservation 106:19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Similä, M., Kouki, J., Mönkkönen, M., Sippola, A.-L. and Huhta, E.. 2006. Co-variation and indicators of species diversity: can richness of forest-dwelling species be predicted in northern boreal forests? Ecological Indicators 6:686–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjöberg, K. and Ericson, L.. 1997. Mosaic boreal landscapes with open and forested wetlands. Ecological Bulletins 46:48–60.Google Scholar
Snäll, T., Ehrlén, J. and Rydin, H.. 2005. Colonization-extinction dynamics of an epiphyte metapopulation in a dynamic landscape. Ecology 86:106–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soulé, M. E. and Sanjayan, M. A.. 1998. Conservation targets: do they help?Science 279:2060–1.Google ScholarPubMed
Southwood, T. R. E. 1977. Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies?Journal of Animal Ecology 46:337–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokland, J. N. 2001. The coarse woody debris profile: an archive of recent forest history and an important biodiversity indicator. Ecological Bulletins 49:71–83.Google Scholar
Storch, I. 1994. Habitat and survival of capercaillie Tetrao urogallus nests and broods in the Bavarian alps. Biological Conservation 70:237–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suter, W., Graf, R. F. and Hess, R.. 2002. Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) and avian biodiversity: testing the umbrella-species concept. Conservation Biology 16:778–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svancara, L. K., Brannon, R., Scott, J. M., Noss, R. F. and Pressey, R. L.. 2005. Policy-driven versus evidence-based conservation: a review of political targets and biological needs. BioScience 55:989–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenning, J. C. 2002. A review of natural vegetation openness in north-western Europe. Biological Conservation 104:133–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tjernberg, M., Johnsson, K. and Nilsson, S. G.. 1993. Density variation and breeding success of the Black Woodpecker Dryocopus martius in relation to forest fragmentation. Ornis Fennica 70:155–62.Google Scholar
Topp, W., Kappes, H., Kulfan, J. and Zach, P.. 2006. Litter-dwelling beetles in primeval forests of Central Europe: does deadwood matter?Journal of Insect Conservation 10:229–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swaay, C., Warren, M. and Loïs, G.. 2006. Biotope use and trends of European butterflies. Journal of Insect Conservation 10:189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vellend, M.et al. 2006. Extinction debt of forest plants persists for more than a century following habitat fragmentation. Ecology 87:542–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vera, F. W. M. 2000. Grazing Ecology and Forest History. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virkkala, R., Alanko, T., Laine, T. and Tiainen, J.. 1993. Population contraction of the white-backed woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos in Finland as a consequence of habitat alteration. Biological Conservation 66:47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virkkala, R. and Rajasärkkä, A.. 2006. Spatial variation of bird species in landscapes dominated by old-growth forests in northern boreal Finland. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:2143–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, M. S. and Key, R. S.. 1991. Woodlands: past, present and potential for insects. Pp. 155–212 in Collins, N. M. and Thomas, J. A. (eds.) The Conservation of Insects and their Habitats. London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegge, P. and Rolstad, J.. 1986. The spacing of capercaillie leaks in relation to habitat and social organization. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 19:401–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werth, S.et al. 2006. Quantifying dispersal and establishment limitation in a population of an epiphytic lichen. Ecology 87:2037–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wesolowski, T. 1995. Value of Bialowieza Forest for the conservation of white-backed woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos in Poland. Biological Conservation 71:69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wikars, L.-O. 2001. The wood-decaying fungus Daldinia loculata (Xyleariacae) as an indicator of fire-dependent insects. Ecological Bulletins 49:263–8.Google Scholar
Wikars, L.-O. 2004. Habitat requirements of the pine wood-living beetle Tragosoma depsarium (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) at log, stand, and landscape scale. Ecological Bulletins 51:287–94.Google Scholar
Wikars, L.-O. and Orrmalm, C.. 2005. Större svartbaggen (Upis ceramboides) i norra Hälsingland. Entomologisk Tidskrift 126:161–70.Google Scholar
Wiktander, U., Olsson, O. and Nilsson, S. G. 2001. Seasonal variation in home-range size, and habitat area requirement of the lesser spotted woodpecker (Dendrocopos minor) in southern Sweden. Biological Conservation 100:387–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolters, V., Bengtsson, J. and Saitzev, A. S.. 2006. Relationship among the species richness of different taxa. Ecology 87:1886–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wulf, M. 1993. Zur Bedeutung historisch alter Waldflächen für den Pflanzenartenschutz. Verhandlungen Gesellschaft für Ökologie 22:269–72.Google Scholar
Zackrisson, O. 1977. Influence of forest fires on the North Swedish boreal forest. Oikos 29:22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×